CBE is course-work delivered online to
schools, with content generally based on the common core. Students work
individually on computers, and are allowed to move from module to module only
when they have "mastered" the current module. Mastery is determined
by passing a test, also delivered online.Testing is thus now a daily fact of schools using CBE.

CBE modules must contain material that is
specific and measurable, that is, easy to test. This severely limits what can
be included in class.

It
is claimed that CBE is "personalized," but only rate of working
through the programs is truly personalized. Given the fact that speed of
working through modules is the criterion for determining student, teacher, and school
success, the pressure on students to work quickly is strong.

A recent report from the National Governor's
Association, a group enthusiastic about CBE, includes this statement:
"Although an emerging research base suggests that CBE is a promising
model, it includes only a few rigorous evaluations and analyses of current and
ongoing CBE pilots and similar programs."

In
other words, we have no hard evidence showing that this expensive program
increases student progress or that it even results in students making
satisfactory progress.

I have examined State Assembly candidates Richard Bloom and Matthew Craffey’s websites, and have found very little information about their positions on education. One of the primary responsibilities of state government is education, but other than pious pronouncements that education is "important," and be available, the candidates rarely mention it.

Here are issues that I think need to be discussed:

Our students are being pushed into excessive amounts of science, technology, engineering and math ("STEM") regardless of their personal interests because of the widespread belief that there is a shortage of American experts in these fields. Several studies have shown, however, that this is not so. Are the candidates aware of this issue?

- California has consistently has very low reading scores. Research relates this problem to a lack of investment in libraries and librarians. Are the candidates committed to more support for our libraries and librarians?

- Bilingual education was dismantled in California in 1998 by Proposition 227, despite strong evidence that properly organized bilingual programs help language minority children acquire academic English. In the November elections Californians will vote on Proposition 58, which would reverse aspects of 227 and once again allow districts to set up bilingual programs that help minority students. Do the candidates have a position on bilingual education?

- Children today undergo a massive amount of unnecessary and expensive testing that does not contribute to their learning. Arizona State University professor David Berliner has reported that increasing testing does not increase school achievement. Have the candidates carefully examined the impact of testing on our students?

- There is a strong movement from publishing and computer companies toward "competency-based education," a new form of online programmed learning that may result in daily testing. There is little evidence that it works. A report from the National Governor's Association states that there have been "only a few rigorous evaluations" of these programs. How do the candidates feel about competency-based education?

About 40% of the state general fund budget goes to K-12 education, and another 10% to higher education. I hope that Mr. Craffey and Mr. Bloom will present their positions on educational issues.

I was very happy to read Malibu Times Publisher Arnold York's endorsement of Proposition 55 (October 19) . Mr. York is correct in saying that that dismantling bilingual education in 1998 (Proposition 227) did not speed up English language acquisition: Research has shown no obvious improvement in English language development resulting from the passage of Prop. 227. Careful scientific studies have also shown that students in quality bilingual programs outperform students with similar backgrounds on tests of English.

Ron Unz claims that the 1998 measure that dismantled bilingual education in California succeeded in teaching Spanish-speakers English. Not so: controlled scientific studies have consistently shown that students in bilingual programs outperform comparison students in all-English programs on tests of English reading. In a recent analysis of 23 comparisons of students in bilingual and English immersion programs, Professors Grace and David McField concluded that when both program and research quality are considered, the superiority of bilingual education is considerably larger than previously reported.

Opponents of bilingual education claim that after the English-only measure passed, test scores rose. English learners' Stanford 9 test scores did indeed improve after Proposition 227 passed, but so did scores of all students and subgroups in California. A new version of the test was introduced the year before the English-only law was passed. Scores increased each year as students and teachers became more familiar with the test, a well-documented pattern when new tests are introduced. Careful analysis has shown no obvious improvement in English language development resulting from the passage of Prop. 227.

The Monitor accurately presented some of the arguments for allowing bilingual education. There is another important one: Bilingual education accelerates English language development.

Stephen KrashenProfessor EmeritusUniversity of Southern California

Sources: 23 comparisons: McField, G. and McField, D. 2014. "The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs: A meta-analysis of meta-analyses." In Grace McField (Ed.) The Miseducation of English Learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. pp. 267-299.Previous meta-analyses of bilingual education research (all conclude that bilingual education is more effective than English immersion)Greene, J. (1999). A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Journal, 21 (2,3): 103-122.Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy 19(4): 572-594.Slavin, R. and Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research of reading instruction for English language learners, Review of Educational Research 75(2): 247-284.Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research 55(3): 269-317.Well-documented pattern: Linn, R., Graue, E., and Sanders, N. 1990. Comparing state and district test results to national norms: The validity of claims that “everyone is above average.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 10: 5-14.No obvious improvement: Parrish, T. et. al. 2006. Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English Learners, K–12, American Institutes for Research and WestEd.

Original article: http://www.pe.com/articles/english-816764-students-language.html

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

There is even more reason to vote "Yes on Proposition 58" than indicated by the Press-Enterprise editorial (October 25). Research on the impact of bilingual education versus immersion strongly supports bilingual education. Careful scientific research consistently shows that students in quality bilingual programs outperform students with similar backgrounds on tests of English.The most recent (and strongest) evidence comes from professors Grace McField (Cal State San Marcos) and David McField (MiraCoasta College), who analyzed the results of 23 comparisons. They concluded that when both program quality and research quality are considered, the superiority of bilingual education was considerably larger than previously reported.Test scores did indeed increase after bilingual education was dismantled by Prop. 227 in 1998, as claimed by supporters of English immersion, but test scores increased for ALL students in California, not just English learners: A new version of the Stanford 9 test was introduced the year before the English-only law was passed. Scores increased each year as students and teachers became more familiar with the test, a well-documented pattern when new standardized tests are introduced. Research has shown no obvious improvement in English language development resulting from the passage of Prop. 227.

Stephen KrashenProfessor EmeritusUniversity of Southern California

Sources: 23 comparisons: McField, G. and McField, D. 2014. "The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs: A meta-analysis of meta-analyses." In Grace McField (Ed.) The Miseducation of English Learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. pp. 267-299.Previous meta-analyses of bilingual education research (all conclude that bilingual education is more effective than English immersion)Greene, J. (1999). A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Journal, 21 (2,3): 103-122.Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy 19(4): 572-594.Slavin, R. and Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research of reading instruction for English language learners, Review of Educational Research 75(2): 247-284.Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research 55(3): 269-317.Well-documented pattern: Linn, R., Graue, E., and Sanders, N. 1990. Comparing state and district test results to national norms: The validity of claims that “everyone is above average.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 10: 5-14.No obvious improvement: Parrish, T. et. al. 2006. Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English Learners, K–12, American Institutes for Research and WestEd.

Original article: http://www.pe.com/articles/english-816764-students-language.html

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Prof. Patricia Gandara presents strong arguments for voting "yes" on Proposition 58, which would make it easier to offer bilingual education in California ("California needs to join the rest of the world," Oct 20).. But there is more: Study after study has shown that language minority students in bilingual education programs do better on tests of English than students with similar backgrounds in all-English immersion classes.

The most recent (and strongest) evidence comes from two San Diego area professors, Grace McField (Cal State San Marcos) and David McField (MiraCoasta College) analyzed the results of 23 comparisons. They concluded that when both program quality and research quality are considered, the superiority of bilingual education was considerably larger than previously reported.

Recent analysis: McField, G. and McField, D. 2014. "The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs: A meta-analysis of meta-analyses." In: The Miseducation of English Learners, edited by Grace McField, and published by Information Age Publishing.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Sent to the OC Register, Oct 22. Aaron Smith ("The fight over English-only education highlights the need for school choice." Oct. 21) claims that English learners' test scores "shot up" after bilingual education was dismantled by Prop. 227 in 1998. But test scores increased for ALL students in California, not just English learners: A new version of the Stanford 9 test was introduced the year before the English-only law was passed. Scores increased each year as students and teachers became more familiar with the test, a well-documented pattern when new standardized tests are introduced. Research has shown no obvious improvement in English language development resulting from the passage of Prop. 227. Smith also claims that research shows that bilingual education is neither a failure nor a success. But controlled scientific studies have consistently shown that students in bilingual programs outperform students with similar backgrounds in all-English programs on tests of English. In the most recent analysis, Professors Grace and David McField concluded that when both program quality and research quality are considered, the superiority of bilingual education was considerably larger than previously reported.Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/made-733003-ago-voters.htmlWell-documented pattern: Linn, R., Graue, E., and Sanders, N. 1990. Comparing state and district test results to national norms: The validity of claims that “everyone is above average.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 10: 5-14.No obvious improvement: Parrish, T. et. al. 2006. Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English Learners, K–12, American Institutes for Research and WestEd.Controlled scientific studies: McField, G. and McField, D. 2014. "The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs: A meta-analysis of meta-analyses." In Grace McField (Ed.) The Miseducation of English Learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. pp. 267-299.Previous meta-analyses of bilingual education research (all conclude that bilingual education is more effective than English immersion)Greene, J. (1999). A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Journal, 21 (2,3): 103-122.Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy 19(4): 572-594.Slavin, R. and Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research of reading instruction for English language learners, Review of Educational Research 75(2): 247-284.Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research 55(3): 269-317.

Friday, October 21, 2016

TESOL has released a statement in support of Prop 58, which will help restore bilingual education as an option for limited English proficient students in California.

The statement says that bilingualism results in personal financial benefits and will make individuals "culturally competent." Both claims are true.

But the statement fails to address to the public's main concern with bilingual programs – their effect on English language development. Ron Unz' uninformed assertion that bilingual education prevents English language acquisition is now being repeated in the media all across the country, nearly without response. (1)

Unz' claim is dead wrong. There is an impressive amount of scientific research showing that children in bilingual education programs do better than peers with similar backgrounds in all-English programs on tests of English.

The most recent analysis of research comparing bilingual education and English "immersion"programs, Professors Grace and David McField concluded that when both program quality and research quality are considered, the superiority of bilingual education was considerably larger than previously reported.

So far, Prop 58 has only resulted more disinformation about bilingual education reaching the public. Editorials and letters opposing 58 all assume that Unz is right and that bilingual education is ineffective. We need to set the record straight. The research supporting bilingual education is strong. The public deserves to know about it. Time is short.

Note: (1) I have written responses to newspaper articles on bilingual education whenever they appear. As is always the case with letters, not all have been published. Since the Prop 58 campaign has begun, my letters have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Daily Press, Sacramento Bee, and Mercury News, but the effect of letters to the editor is feeble compared to the impact of official newspaper editorials and when they come from only one person.

Sources:TESOL International Association Statement on California Proposition 58.http://www.tesol.org/news-landing-page/2016/10/18/tesol-international-association-statement-on-california-proposition-58Most recent analysis: McField, G. and McField, D. 2014. "The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs: A meta-analysis of meta-analyses." In Grace McField (Ed.) The Miseducation of English Learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. pp. 267-299.Previous meta-analyses of bilingual education research (all conclude that bilingual education is more effective than English immersion)Greene, J. (1999). A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Journal, 21 (2,3): 103-122.Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy 19(4): 572-594.Slavin, R. and Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research of reading instruction for English language learners, Review of Educational Research 75(2): 247-284.Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research 55(3): 269-317.

Monday, October 17, 2016

The 83% high school graduation figure is based on graduation in four years ("US High-School Graduation Rate Rose Last Year," Oct 17). Announcing graduation rates based only those who graduate "on time" sends the message that there is something wrong with taking longer. During the depression, the father of one of my colleagues went to high school every other year, working to help support the family when he wasn't in school. This was heroic Taking longer than the usual four years is often an indication of persistence and determination, not laziness.

Stephen KrashenProfessor EmeritusUniversity of Southern California

Original article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/high-school-graduation-rate-rises-in-u-s-1476698402

Missing from the Times' otherwise informative article about bilingual education in California ("Californians, Having Curbed Bilingual Education, May Now Expand It," Oct. 17) is a response to Ron Unz' serious accusation. Unz correctly emphasized the importance of English but made the false claim that bilingual education prevents English language development.

The opposite is true: Study after study has shown that children in bilingual programs do better in English reading than similar students in all-English “immersion” programs.

In the most recent analysis, Researchers Grace and David McField examined all available studies comparing bilingual education and English immersion. They concluded that when both program quality and research quality are considered, the superiority of bilingual education was considerably larger than previously reported.

Bilingual programs, when set up and evaluated correctly, do not prevent the acquisition of English, they accelerate it.

Stephen KrashenProfessor EmeritusUniversity of Southern California

original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/us/californians-having-curbed-bilingual-education-may-now-expand-it.html?_r=0

Sources:

Most recent analysis: McField, G. and McField, D. (2014). "The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs: A meta-analysis of meta-analyses." In Grace McField (Ed.) The Miseducation of English Learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. pp. 267-299.

Previous meta-analyses of bilingual education research (all conclude that bilingual education is more effective than English immersion)Greene, J. (1999). A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Journal, 21 (2,3): 103-122.Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy 19(4): 572-594.Slavin, R. and Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research of reading instruction for English language learners, Review of Educational Research 75(2): 247-284.Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research 55(3): 269-317.

Friday, October 14, 2016

The Union-Tribune claims that dismantling bilingual education caused the number of dropouts among Hispanic students to decline ("Graduation gains, history require rejection of Prop. 58," October 13).
Research does not show that language is the main factor in predicting dropout rates. Many factors contribute to dropping out, including factors related to poverty: Young people have to work to help their families.
Even if English mastery were the main factor in school completion, bilingual education can not be the problem. Research consistently shows that bilingual education is good for English development: Scientific studies have consistently shown that students in bilingual programs outperform comparison students in all-English programs on tests of English reading.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Original article: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/sd-no-prop-58-english-instruction-20161012-story.html

Thursday, October 13, 2016

I was astonished to read that higher education in the USA paid an estimated $6.6 billion to support blended learning ("Blended Learning: The Right Mix," Oct, 2016).

That's a lot of money for an approach with little hard research support: Reviews of research that compares of blended learning and face-to-face classes show only a modest advantage for blended learning, with most studies showing no difference. Even this small advantage may be due to the fact that blended learning approaches involve more learning time.

The future of technology in education is bright, but a policy that is more educationally justified as well as more financially prudent is the gradual introduction of technology. We should start with inexpensive and obvious options, initiated by experienced professionals (teachers). The approaches should be confirmed by solid research before they are widely implemented.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Confusion about language acquisition and bilingual educationSent to Education Week, October 11.

Harmeet Dhillon of the California Republican Party claims that it is "common sense" that "the faster you're required to learn the mainstream language, the better off you are." (“Bilingual education poised for a comeback in California schools, “ Oct 11). Not true. We do not acquire language because we are forced to. We acquire language when we understand what we hear and read in that language, that is, when we get "comprehensible input." When children get quality education in their first language, they learn more subject matter. This knowledge helps make the English they hear more comprehensible, which results in more acquisition of English. Bilingual programs are not "all Spanish." Students take English as a second language classes from the first day of school, and subject matter is taught in English as soon as it can be made comprehensible.Research consistently shows that students in quality bilingual programs outperform students with similar backgrounds on tests of English reading. In the most recent analysis, Professors Grace and David McField found that when both program quality and research quality are considered, the superiority of bilingual education was considerably larger than previously reported.

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/10/12/bilingual-education-poised-for-a-comeback-in.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news1

Shanahan states that "the effects of DEAR, SSR,
SQUIRT or any of the other 'independent reading time' schemes are tiny when it
comes to reading achievement."

Shanahan does not cite any sources for
this claim. Several meta-analyses of studies done with second language
acquirers, however, show that effect sizes for SSR are quite respectable and
the results for readers of different ages are similar. Table 1 summarizes
these studies. (Several individual studies are included in more than one
meta-analysis, but the overlap is not complete.)

Table 1: Meta-analysis of the effect of
Sustained Silent Reading

Effect sizes

Study

vocab(N)

R.C. (N)

Krashen (2007)

.87 (15)

Nakanishi (2014)

.18 (9)

.68 (15)

Jeon & Day (2016)

.47 (17)

.54 (46)

N = number of studies

In Tse, Xiao, Ko, Lam, Hui, and Ng
(2016), fourth grade children in
Taiwan and Hong Kong who reported doing more independent reading in their first
language in school scored higher on the PIRLS 2006 reading test, controlling
for students' reading attitude, parents'
reading attitude, home education resources, the amount of outside schol
informational reading done, and the amount of in-class reading aloud done by
students.

Students indicated how much SSR they
were doing on a four point scale where 1 = none at all and 4 = every day or
nearly every day. The results predict that a school moving from doing no SSR to
an every day or nearly every day program will experience a PIRLS gain of 20
points for Hong Kong schools and 45 ponts for Taiwan schools, which is
substantial.

The "failure" of SSR?

Shanahan also states "As it became
obvious and research accumulated showing the lack of learning from
unaccountable reading (e.g., DEAR, SSR) ...".

The evidence cited above confirms that
SSR works, as do many other studies (Krashen, 2004, 2005, 2011).

Does SSR promote a reading habit?

Shanahan also claims
that "research doesn’t provide us with methods proven to increase the
likelihood kids will become lifelong readers. But it does give us insights into
what does motivate people. SSR and DEAR do not match well with those
insights."

Studies have confirmed that
students
who have participated in SSR programs read more on their own than those who
have not, both immediately after the program ends (Pilgreen and Krashen, 1993)
as well as years later (Greaney and Clarke, 1975).

McKool (2007) interviewed
fifth graders who were clearly "avid readers." Avid readers ...
reported that voluntary reading was promoted in their classes through the
practice of Sustained Silent Reading ... they felt ... that it was critical for
teachers to allow them to read whatever they wanted to read. When avid readers
were asked to read required materials during this time, they frequently
admitted that 'This makes me not want to read.'" (p. 125).

Greaney, V., and M. Clarke, M. (1973). A longitudinal study of the
effects of two reading methods on leisure-time reading habits. In Reading: What
of the future? ed. D. Moyle. London: United Kingdom Reading Association. Pp.
107-114.

Pilgreen, J. and Krashen, S. (1993). Sustained silent
reading with English as a second language high school students: Impact on
reading comprehension, reading frequency, and reading enjoyment. School Library
Media Quarterly 22: 21-23.

Saturday, October 8, 2016

The Mercury News recommends voting against Prop. 58 because "English proficiency has to be paramount for success in this country," noting that after Proposition 227 passed, English proficiency tripled ("Bilingual rules rewrite deserves no vote, “ Oct 7)
English learners' Stanford 9 test scores did in fact increase after 227 passed, but so did scores for all students in California. A new version of the test was introduced the year before 227 was passed. Scores increased each year as students and teachers became more familiar with the test, a well-documented pattern when new standardized tests are introduced. 227 does not deserve the credit for this increase.
Careful scientific studies have shown no obvious improvement in English language development resulting from the passage of Prop. 227. Also, controlled studies have consistently shown that students in bilingual programs outperform comparison students in all-English programs on tests of English reading.
English proficiency is paramount for success. For this reason, we should support Proposition 58.

Stephen Krashen

Original article: https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/07/editorial-bilingual-rules-rewrite-deserves-no-vote/

Sources:
No obvious improvement: Jepsen, C. and de Alth, S. 2005. English learners in California schools. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California; Parrish, T. 2006. Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English Learners, K–12: Year 5 Report. American Institutes for Research and WestEd.

Saturday, October 1, 2016

Published in the Mercury News, October 2, 2016California’s Prop 58 would restore bilingual education. A recent poll said that there was support for 58, but respondents were not enthusiastic about 58 after reading one of eight summaries of the measure.The summaries said that we should allow students to take classes in the native language to keep their culture and language, or because bilingualism will help students eventually “get good jobs.” True, but there is another reason to allow instruction using the first language: It results in better English.The summaries also said that English-only is the way to “preserve our common American culture and language,” and “English is necessary.” This assumes that the only way to acquire English is through English-only programs, which is false.How would people react if they knew that students in well designed bilingual programs consistently outperform similar students in all-English programs on tests of English? That’s exactly what the research says.Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern Californiahttp://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/30/oct-2-readers-letters-congress-opens-doors-to-lawsuits-with-veto-override/